I saw links to the dailymail, and I didn't even bother clicking on them. I didn't have too... you do realize the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right? Next you'll be believing that space dragons are attacking Earth...

On an incidental note... why is universal healthcare considered a "socialist program" by people in my home of USA, and yet they don't consider Firestations, police, libraries, public schools, roadways, sewers and public sanitation as "Socialist program"?

Did people actually start getting angry and shouting "Why should I have to pay for somebody else's carelessnes around the stove!?" or "Why should I pay for somebody else to have a bodyguard because they were too stupid to walk into a dark alley alone?"

How far does this go back? Is there a caveman with a spear walking out of a forrest and sees another caveman planting crops and says "Stupid man... make family weak by not teaching family to hunt! Grow crops... make family weak! Flabby! Make family not want do nothing!"

This is a good post. It goes back to the USA's communist McCarthy fears of the 50s and jerks like Ronald Reagan calling universal healthcare socialism. socialism in america means communism (in that era). Now we know it's a different kind of political and economic system (tax wise). Still americans are just brainwashed.

I went to an education conference one time where a former education secretary said "we're not set up to teach you reading writing and arithmetic. they're important yes, but our number one goal is make you a patriot".

So we see universal medicine as some kind of socialist thing because of the republican mantras and see our overlords the police, our protectors the firemen, and our mail as "government". when in fact they're socialist type programs.

our government out and out sucks and is more concerned with the military industrial complex, keeping the rich rich, and our foreign policy is Isreal is our lord and screw the rest.

Didn't the Daily Mail and many other tabloids and a few broadsheets get a huge bollocking in the Leveson inquiry? And you're now expecting me to listen to them proselytising about the breakdown of moral values?

This is perfectly legal and it's not to save money, it's the parent's decision.

Is that so?

The LCP has continued to be controversial. It has been claimed that elderly patients were admitted to hospital for emergency treatment and put on the LCP without documented proof that the patient wanted it, or could not recover from their health problem; 48 year old Norfolk man Andrew Flanagan was revived by his family and went home for a further five weeks after doctors put him on the LCP.[29] The Royal College of Physicians found that up to half of families were not informed of clinicians’ decision to put a relative on the pathway.[30]
Writing in the Daily Mail, Patrick Pullicino has claimed that doctors' use of the the LCP protocol has turned it into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.[31] In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, six doctors belonging to the Medical Ethics Alliance[30] called on LCP to provide evidence that the pathway is "safe and effective, or even required", arguing that, in the elderly, natural death is more often painless, provision of fluids is the main way of easing thirst, and "no one should be deprived of consciousness except for the gravest reason

Funny how in other countries with socialised medicine this doesn't happen. So basically it is a problem of the UK, not of socialised medicine.

And hey, at least the hospital tries to help in stead of asking for your health insurance first right? And then billing you a rediculous amount that isn't even close to what it costs in any other country.........ouch.

of course it has everything to do with it. It costs the government over there less money to have all these people on the LCP instead of giving them surgeries and treatments to live. LCP is there to save them money... socialized medicine.

As far as US doctors... i can think of a certain vaccine thread in which numerous people would tell you otherwise.

Ofcourse it has nothing to do with it.
In the US they'd just not let you in if you had no insurance, how's that different? You sure as hell can't pay.

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 11:57 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Caliph

This is a good post. It goes back to the USA's communist McCarthy fears of the 50s and jerks like Ronald Reagan calling universal healthcare socialism. socialism in america means communism (in that era). Now we know it's a different kind of political and economic system (tax wise). Still americans are just brainwashed.

I went to an education conference one time where a former education secretary said "we're not set up to teach you reading writing and arithmetic. they're important yes, but our number one goal is make you a patriot".

So we see universal medicine as some kind of socialist thing because of the republican mantras and see our overlords the police, our protectors the firemen, and our mail as "government". when in fact they're socialist type programs.

our government out and out sucks and is more concerned with the military industrial complex, keeping the rich rich, and our foreign policy is Isreal is our lord and screw the rest.

really bad imo.

They still think socialism is communism, that's what all the fuss is about and why they almost voted the dumbest person alive to be their president (Romney obviously)

Funny how in other countries with socialised medicine this doesn't happen. So basically it is a problem of the UK, not of socialised medicine.

And hey, at least the hospital tries to help in stead of asking for your health insurance first right? And then billing you a rediculous amount that isn't even close to what it costs in any other country.........ouch.

The funny thing about socialized medicine is that people think it's free, high quality and no one gets turned away.

There are always going to be people who fall through the cracks. With the American system, it's poor people who can't afford basic care. With the European systems, it's the dependents who need far more specialized care.

No system is perfect and I think people who hold up single payer healthcare as the greatest thing since the discovery of fire should get their heads in the game and confront harsh realities that their system isn't perfect.

Where did I say it was free? Nobody thinks it is free. Yes it can be of high quality and nobody gets turned away. There don't even have to be waiting lists. Go look at the Dutch system.

Every health system on the planet is not just sweden and 2 independant cases where the hospitals did not react appropriately is not the same as a system where it is completely legal to turn down patients because they cannot afford it which isn't an uncommon occurance neither.

There are always going to be people who fall through the cracks. With the American system, it's poor people who can't afford basic care. With the European systems, it's the dependents who need far more specialized care.

No system is perfect and I think people who hold up single payer healthcare as the greatest thing since the discovery of fire should get their heads in the game and confront harsh realities that their system isn't perfect.

Id like you to find some denial of coverage stories from Denmark then. Where we pay private hospitals to do procedures if the waiting lists are too long.

Letting people who are going to die after unbearable suffering die quicker is worse than letting people die because they don't have health insurance or because their insurance agency doesn't want to pay?

In any case, this has nothing to do with socialized medicine, this is doctors who are performing euthanasia on terminally ill patients who are suffering in the only way the law allows them to at their patient's (or in this case the parents') request. If you want to make a topic about this make it about the cruelty of the UK's euthanasia laws.

controversial =/= illegal. It takes some liberties with the interpretation of the law but it isn't illegal. Starvation is one of the few ways people with severe disabilities have to end their lives, given that assisted suicide is still illegal, despite suicide not being illegal. In the case of the elderly, the doctors have a defence, medical futility. If they cannot treat whatever is killing the person, but merely treat the symptoms, then withdrawing treatment could be considered the right course of action since they'd just be artificially extending a patient's life who has no hope to recover.
Also if it's considered 'commonly accepted medical practice' and is done in good faith, the doctor's within his rights.

No system is perfect and I think people who hold up single payer healthcare as the greatest thing since the discovery of fire should get their heads in the game and confront harsh realities that their system isn't perfect.

No system is perfect. But a system where everyone is guaranteed equal access to medical care and medicines regardless of the size of their bank account or whether or not they managed to get an insurance without company loopholes is a damn slight better than the alternative.

....you seriously need better sources of news. Next you'll be linking FOX specials claiming they're a news source... or the Sun or the Mirror for that matter...

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 07:48 PM ----------

Originally Posted by rainiothon

Didn't the Daily Mail and many other tabloids and a few broadsheets get a huge bollocking in the Leveson inquiry? And you're now expecting me to listen to them proselytising about the breakdown of moral values?

Well, by your definition they would be the theoretical experts on the subject... hehe :P

Last edited by mvallas; 2012-11-30 at 07:47 PM.

Isn't it immature that you call him Donald "Dump"?
I agree, it's childish and stupid - and that's my point. it's meant as a deliberate mockery of his blatant disrespect via using "Crooked Hillary", and thus I can call him "Dump" since he dumps his campaign promises, dumps campaign managers, dumps his wives, wants to dump the first amendment, dumps common-sense war ethics and dumps the use of proper English in favor of a mongrel white-trash dialect.

Id like you to find some denial of coverage stories from Denmark then. Where we pay private hospitals to do procedures if the waiting lists are too long.

I suppose it's possible to cover everyone at all times no matter what and still not have to make decisions regarding who needs the care more. Wouldn't that result in some pretty hefty taxes? My buddy Mats is telling me Danes are taxed ~52% on money over $50,000/year? And they're looking to raise that number to about 60%?

It's about fucking time that this country has a discussion about end of life care, and the financial burden that it has on those who are still alive. 40% of medicare costs go to the patients last month?

No, but really, lets make sure we keep "severely disfigured newborns" alive as long as possible even though they have zero chance of living. That's a good use of money.

Maybe if euthanasia were a more accepted practice, we wouldn't have to starve these babies.

Thank you Deadvolcanoes, for some freaking rational thought. People die, we should let them die, not keep them "alive".

Thank you Deadvolcanoes, for some freaking rational thought. People die, we should let them die, not keep them "alive".

Well, I agree with euthanasia, but the controversy with the LCP isn't about voluntary euthanasia. People are being placed on the end of life path without their consent or knowledge and even without even documentation that their condition is not treatable.

I suppose it's possible to cover everyone at all times no matter what and still not have to make decisions regarding who needs the care more. Wouldn't that result in some pretty hefty taxes? My buddy Mats is telling me Danes are taxed ~52% on money over $50,000/year? And they're looking to raise that number to about 60%?

I havent heard about it but it wouldnt surprise me - damn red government.

But anyway - so you agree that it is actually possible to cover everyone in a working healthcare system. And that this is already in place.